Zelda is actually pretty loose as far as lore is concerned. The setting as far as what Hyrule is or looks like isn't important, like @Dreamz said they even flooded it and in doing so pretty much started fresh. Not even who Link and Zelda are aren't set in stone, again as seen in Wind Waker and Skyward Sword. As long as they keep playing with the story and setting like they have it should be fine, its rooted in lore just enough to be somewhat consistent, nothing more.

As far as Skyward Sword and Twilight Princess go for being "confined" to lore, the former was about the very beginning of it all, it was square one. Twilight Princess only had Ganondorf as the focus at the very end, the game was all about Link, Midna, and the twilight realm. He was as important to the story as Vaati during his appearances, less so actually since he was never involved until then.

The Adventure of Link still worked because in spite of the RPG elements because grinding was a challenge in itself, and grinding was still not enough to make sure you succeeded in each dungeon. Zelda isn't a series where if you can't beat a boss, you spend a few hours milling around the countryside until you shrug off all the boss's attacks. It's more about quick thinking on the fly, and using your ingenuity rather than your effort.

The rupee thing is a problem, yes, but having rupees buy permanent increases to stats is just creating a bigger problem.

I think the problem is more the fans themselves. If you make any changes, they riot (Skyward Sword, and iirc Majora's Mask had a decent backlash in it's day too) and if you don't, people say your milking it.

My SD Card with the game on it is just as physical as your cartridge with the game on it.
I love Nintendo, that's why I criticize them so harshly.

I've played every Zelda game that's part of the timeline and I completely disagree.

Really want a game were you play as Shiek though

I'm referring more to the console Zeldas than anything. Of the 5 Console Zelda games since ALttP, 4 have been about the basic Ganon, Legendary Hero, and Master Sword concept. MM is pretty much the only exception. This kind of repetitive story concept is fine in platformers like Mario, but Zelda is a series that demands more story.

Currently Playing: Okami, Shadow of the Colossus, Tales of Vesperia, Sin and Punishment: Star Successor
"P...P...Prepare to die Eggbear!"

If you play Zelda games for the story, you will pretty much end up disappointed.

I already said this, but in all Nintendo games the story is just there to justify the gameplay and not the other way around.

The whole "hero named link uses the master sword to defeat ganon and save zelda" thing is just the basic story skeleton of the franchise. Everything else changes with the games. And that's good, it works for the games just right.

I already said this, but in all Nintendo games the story is just there to justify the gameplay and not the other way around.

The whole "hero named link uses the master sword to defeat ganon and save zelda" thing is just the basic story skeleton of the franchise. Everything else changes with the games. And that's good, it works for the games just right.

Story is there to justify gameplay for most games, not just Nintendo ones.

My point is having such a skeleton is a bad idea. A Medeival setting is fine, having them all take place in the same universe is fine, but a recurring skeleton is what I expect in a platformer, not an Action-Adventure game. And no, Zelda isn't some special case that doesn't need as much story. Why do you think people get so excited about the Timeline, or why people want a Zelda movie. It's because they like the idea of plot in Zelda. It's a series that does atmosphere incredibly well, and that is something that goes well with story elements.

Currently Playing: Okami, Shadow of the Colossus, Tales of Vesperia, Sin and Punishment: Star Successor
"P...P...Prepare to die Eggbear!"

I've played every Zelda game that's part of the timeline and I completely disagree.

Really want a game were you play as Shiek though

I'm referring more to the console Zeldas than anything. Of the 5 Console Zelda games since ALttP, 4 have been about the basic Ganon, Legendary Hero, and Master Sword concept. MM is pretty much the only exception. This kind of repetitive story concept is fine in platformers like Mario, but Zelda is a series that demands more story.

Wind Waker had Hyrule being flooded which made the story very different. It has many interesting things such as the evolution of Zora's to Ritos and Kokiri to Korok. It's quite different in art style and gameplay too. With sailing and the many islands it has a lot of exploration and discovery.

Skyward Sword is an origin story plus the gameplay is very different as the outside areas are all designed in a similar way to dungeons, giving a confined feeling, a contrast to the open sky area. It's interesting to see that despite set early in Zelda history there are some unexpected things such as ancient robots.

I can't think of anything to say about Twilight Princess right now but I think details like those I mentioned above make the games very interesting and the game play is always very different.

I think it's important to keep some elements in tact, like puzzle laden dungeons, and the importance of a sword that changes the destiny of the world when wielded by the hero. Changing some elements just won't work...like:

"Can we do a God of War where Kratos is maybe not so angry and out for revenge all the time?" - NO!

"How about a Grand Theft Auto with a streamlined linear story and you are actually an undercover cop?" - NO!

"How about a Metal Gear Solid game with a plot that actually makes sense and isn't filled with WTF moments?" -NO!...well...NO!

Let me flip your rhetorical questions around.

Does X have to be about the Monado?
Does 3D Mario have to be about Mario collecting stars to save the Princess?

Super Mario 3D World didn't shake up the formula too much without Princess Peach. If you want a better metaphor, does 3D Mario really need platforming and collecting stars/shines/wutever?

I really loved the Lanayru desert segments in Skyward Sword. The idea that the distant past of the distant past of Hyrule was much more technologically advanced than the distant future is my favorite thing in the whole game. And the sea-desert! The best part of the game.

The problem I have is that fans are asking the series to change so much that it might as well be a different series altogether. I'd be happy with some change, but not to the point that it's unrecognizable

It's a delicate balance. You have to change some things to avoid monotony, but if you change it too much, you're going to be losing fans of the earlier games. I think the Wii U presents an opportunity to be as much of a game-changer to the Zelda series as Ocarina of Time was.

Should a Zelda game be an RPG? No. RPG elements? Sure, if kept minimal. RPG elements are creeping into almost every genre under the sun these days. The upgrade system in Skyward Sword was fine. I think something like a magic skill tree could also work as long as you have a finite number of choices that are unlocked at certain points of the game. No grinding.

Should a Zelda game exclude Link? No. Have another playable character alongside Link? Sure. Fans have been asking to play as Zelda or Sheik for a long time now. Why not? I don't think it should be presented as a choice though. Just different characters for different sections of the game, like how you had to be Wolf Link for specific sections of Twilight Princess. Maybe give a choice for open world and subquest portions of the game, but not main story.

Should a Zelda game exclude a sword? Hmm, maybe not, but I don't think there's anything wrong with offering players a choice of their primary weapon. A small selection with their own strengths and weaknesses, like a sword and shield (balanced), axe (power), spear (range and AoE), and dual daggers (speed).

All of the handheld games have proven that you don't need Ganon as the chief baddy. Majora's Mask proved that you don't even need Zelda (though I would have preferred her inclusion in some way).

But what's important is to stay true to the spirit of a Zelda game - being a storybook adventure about a hero triumphing over evil.

I've played every Zelda game that's part of the timeline and I completely disagree.

Really want a game were you play as Shiek though

I'm referring more to the console Zeldas than anything. Of the 5 Console Zelda games since ALttP, 4 have been about the basic Ganon, Legendary Hero, and Master Sword concept. MM is pretty much the only exception. This kind of repetitive story concept is fine in platformers like Mario, but Zelda is a series that demands more story.

Wind Waker had Hyrule being flooded which made the story very different. It has many interesting things such as the evolution of Zora's to Ritos and Kokiri to Korok. It's quite different in art style and gameplay too. With sailing and the many islands it has a lot of exploration and discovery.

Skyward Sword is an origin story plus the gameplay is very different as the outside areas are all designed in a similar way to dungeons, giving a confined feeling, a contrast to the open sky area. It's interesting to see that despite set early in Zelda history there are some unexpected things such as ancient robots.

I can't think of anything to say about Twilight Princess right now but I think details like those I mentioned above make the games very interesting and the game play is always very different.

Well I'm not saying Zelda doesn't mix it up with story at all, because it does. It's actually impressive how far they've gotten with the same skeleton. But I'd say that level of creativity is in spite of a creative lore rather than because of it.

Currently Playing: Okami, Shadow of the Colossus, Tales of Vesperia, Sin and Punishment: Star Successor
"P...P...Prepare to die Eggbear!"

I've played every Zelda game that's part of the timeline and I completely disagree.

Really want a game were you play as Shiek though

I'm referring more to the console Zeldas than anything. Of the 5 Console Zelda games since ALttP, 4 have been about the basic Ganon, Legendary Hero, and Master Sword concept. MM is pretty much the only exception. This kind of repetitive story concept is fine in platformers like Mario, but Zelda is a series that demands more story.

Wind Waker had Hyrule being flooded which made the story very different. It has many interesting things such as the evolution of Zora's to Ritos and Kokiri to Korok. It's quite different in art style and gameplay too. With sailing and the many islands it has a lot of exploration and discovery.

Skyward Sword is an origin story plus the gameplay is very different as the outside areas are all designed in a similar way to dungeons, giving a confined feeling, a contrast to the open sky area. It's interesting to see that despite set early in Zelda history there are some unexpected things such as ancient robots.

I can't think of anything to say about Twilight Princess right now but I think details like those I mentioned above make the games very interesting and the game play is always very different.

Well I'm not saying Zelda doesn't mix it up with story at all, because it does. It's actually impressive how far they've gotten with the same skeleton. But I'd say that level of creativity is in spite of a creative lore rather than because of it.

Nobody is saying the lore is really creative, just that it doesn't get in the way of their creativity. The lore didn't stop Link from being a train conductor or a shepherd. It didn't stop the creation of the twilight realm, new Hyrule, or Skyloft. All of those games did build on the lore though, and piecing it together is one of the things people like about it, a lot of it is left to the imagination.